Tuesday, 16 February 2010

Another vaccine warning for young people and parents - Gardasil.

It’s bad enough not being fully active and able when you suffer any form of life debilitating condition. It’s even worse when you are (were) a healthy young person, with your whole live ahead of you, and a simple vaccine takes it all away from you.

You see your friends out playing. Mentally, you think about joining them but all the body can do is lay down. You haven’t got any energy, you can hardly breath, you’re in pain, you can’t stand for too long and the list goes on.

So, today, I’m back with another scandal for you and another warning for young people, parents, grandparents, guardians and anyone who cares about someone dear.

This time my warning is about a vaccine called: Gardasil.

Many of you may remember Gardasil from a few years ago when, a celebrity talk show host announced to the world, there would soon be a time mothers would be able to vaccinate their daughters against cervical cancer.

At the time, I, for one, having had cervical cancer twice now, remember thinking what a blessing it would be for young women not to have to go through what I have. As it turns out, thousands of young girls, young women, and counting, are going through much worse; not because of cervical cancer but because of the “so say” preventative vaccine they received.

Worst of all, it seems that young women might not be the only ones who will continue to suffer. Merck now produce a vaccine for young men and boys as well.

Gardasil, which is also known as Siligard, (produced by Merck), was suppose to be the miracle vaccine that would protect young girls from human papillomaviruses (HPV.) What are these? These are viruses that can cause cervical, vaginal, anal and penile types of cancers as well as genital warts.

26 million vaccines of Gardasil were distributed in the USA. On the 1st September 2009, the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) reported that in 15,037 people who received the vaccine, 93% had (what were considered non serious side effects whilst the remaining 7% suffered what were considered serious side effects; including death.

It is worth mentioning here that in the non serious side effect category young adults reported fainting, which caused more serious injuries sustained to the head. I would just like to say here that an injury sustained to the head can be very serious and sometimes fatal, so how this can be considered not serious is beyond me.

However, as the packaging now states, preventative measures such as “close monitoring” after injection of the substance can help to reduce the risk of accidents that might occur due to fainting.

Yet is it enough? I question this because of the aluminum ingredient contained in the vaccine, which I will cover a little further down in the report.

An interesting fact worth noting is the way VAERS compiles its data for events; not just for adverse effects to this vaccine but to any vaccine.

Anyone can file an adverse reaction to a vaccine; either directly to VAERS (online) or via a health adviser. However, the majority of data VAERS receives comes from the vaccine manufacturers, at a staggering 37%; compared to only a 7% from parents/guardians. So, I have to question how accurate any of its data truly is.

It would seem to me that there is a bias in data in favour of the pharmaceutical companies who are behind the products they are manufacturing and selling.

8,000 deaths were reported in 2008. I couldn’t find any up to date figures for 2010 but then I didn’t really go digging deep enough. I’m sure if someone wanted to really find them, they could.

So, what are the ingredients? Know them in detail:

Amorphous Aluminum

We all know that aluminum is a metal. Amorphous comes from the Greek amorphos, which means “without shape.” You probably know a great deal about aluminum. It’s the stuff aircraft structures are made of. Aluminum is naturally resistant to corrosion. It is also a great catalyst, which means it increases the speed at which a chemical agent reacts.

It’s been dubbed the new mercury in vaccines. How safe is it? Nobody quite knows yet. However, all the accounts I’ve read online, which you can read too if you search Aluminum don’t have anything to say in its favour.

How toxic is it to humans and in what quantities? Again, it’s an unanswerable question. There have never been sufficient clinical trials carried out to test its safety. Let’s just say that what we know so far makes aluminum about as toxic to humans as mercury.

Another very important question we should be asking here is, what are the effects of aluminum on the brain? Because, ultimately, when we’re injected with it, that’s where it will end up as well.

Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate

Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate is an adjuvnt of aluminum. It’s used in vaccines to “so say” stimulate the immune system. However, I quote: -

Animal and human studies have shown that aluminum can cause nerve cell death [1] and that vaccine aluminum adjuvants can allow aluminum to enter the brain, [2,3] as well as cause inflammation at the injection site leading to chronic joint and muscle pain and fatigue.

- end quote -

sodium chloride - salt

L-histidine - an amino acid

Polysorbate 80

Polysorbate 80 is the drug known as Tween 80, used in the H1N1 vaccine I covered in one of my last posts. It’s a drug used to trick the blood brain barrier to open up so that nano-drugs can be carried through into the brain. However, in 2005, it was discovered that this drug can cause hives, breathing problems and a sharp enough drop in blood pressure to actually be fatal. Aside from this, it was found to cause infertility in mice.

For a fuller description of Polysorbate 80 (Tween 80) you can refer to my article: H1N1 Vaccine - Know it in detail (Part 2.)

Sodium borate

Sodium borate is also known as Borax. It’s an interesting ingredient, in my opinion, to have in a vaccine since it is primarily used as an agent in detergents, ceramics, pottery, enamels, insecticides for cockroaches, ants and such likes. It’s also used as inks for dip pens, a treatment for thrush in horses’ hooves and as a buffering agent to control the Ph in swimming pools.

Packaging Information - Courtesy of the FDA website

6 ADVERSEREACTIONSOverall Summary of Adverse ReactionsHeadache, fever, nausea, and dizziness; and local injection site reactions (pain, swelling, erythema, pruritus, and bruising) occurred after administration with GARDASIL.Syncope, sometimes associated with tonic-clonic movements and other seizure-like activity, has been reported following vaccination with GARDASIL and may result in falling with injury; observation for 15 minutes after administration is recommended. [See Warnings and Precautions (5.1).]Anaphylaxis has been reported following vaccination with GARDASIL.

13.1 Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of FertilityGARDASIL has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity.GARDASIL administered to female rats at a dose of 120 mcg total protein, which is equivalent to the recommended human dose, had no effects on mating performance, fertility, or embryonic/fetal survival.The effect of GARDASIL on male fertility has been studied in male rats at an intramuscular dose of 0.5 mL/rat/occasion (120 mcg total protein which is equivalent to the recommended human dose). One group of male rats was administered GARDASIL once, 3 days prior to cohabitation, and a second group of male rats was administered GARDASIL three times, at 6 weeks, 3 weeks, and 3 days prior to cohabitation. There were no treatment-related effects on reproductive performance including fertility, sperm count, and sperm motility. There were no treatment-related gross or histomorphologic and weight changes on the testes.

End quote -

For full packaging detail, I’ve provided the link below.

Please note: Infertility tests were carried out on rats at intervals of 3 days, 3 weeks and 6 weeks prior to mating. My question is, what about the long term effects? Given the Polysorbate 80 (Tween 80) content, what do we know about how it will affect reproductivity in the future? Where are the long term study results of its effects on reproductivity?

The packaging says: - and I quote -

Because these events were reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not possible to reliably estimate their frequency or to establish a causal relationship to vaccine exposure.

End quote -

Is it not fairer to say that the pharmaceutical companies were in such a hurry to get their product on the market to make money, that, instead of spending more money, time and energy on doing another “more thorough test, they decided to seek FDA approval with fancy wording and do a live test on a much larger population? i.e. the general public.

Let me just say here that I am not against pharmaceutical companies in any way and I am not against vaccinations in any way. What I am against is pharmaceutical companies using the general population as live guinea pigs for products that have been insufficiently tested in clinical trials.

I also feel that the old methods of scientific research are outdated. The controlled methods of testing versus the placebo groups just don’t work anymore. They’re fast and they’re convenient and statistics are drawn from means calculations.

In some countries, doctors and health officials get kick backs (commissions) from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing their drugs. If you didn’t know that, there’s an interesting thought for you to ponder on.

I wonder if reports on studies are subject to such biases as well in certain countries where product tests are carried out. We already know that research is funded by companies who have an invested interest in seeing their product on the market.

One last thought I will leave you with is this. A product maybe tested in 7, 13, 25 or however many different countries. In some countries it is unethical to pay volunteers to participate. However, in others it is not. For some people, being clinical volunteers is an only way to survive and feed a family.

In some countries, that are considered third world, participants are considered less than human. In fact, they are probably considered less than laboratory rats. If they suffer serious side effects, and they’ve been paid, do you honestly think the results would make it into the study reports? I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions.